One of the allegations-in the petition was that the buildings prevented proper measures from being carried into effect for remedying nuisances dangerous to health and other sanitary evils in respect of other buildings to which they were adjacent. As has been said, it was made to appear that these buildings were erected within a very short distance of other buildings which were also uséd as tenement houses, and it is quite likely that the proximity of the two buildings deprived each of them of the ventilation necessary to make them fit for the uses to which the owners intended to put them. But if these particular buildings were themselves in a proper condition, or were put in a proper condition, .the fact that, located as they were, they stopped ventilation of other buildings so that those other buildings were not fit to be used as tenement houses, was no warrant for the destruction of these buildings. It might furnish a good reason why the other buildings, not being supplied with sufficient air so that they could be occupied by a great numbér of people, might be vacated ; but was not a reason for the destruction of these buildings, so that the other buildings might become fitted for use as tenement houses and thereby more valuable. In this country the right of one owner of property to have light and air for his buildings at the expense of land of another owner is not recognized, except it comes to exist by express contract. (Myers v. Gemmel, 10 Barb. 537.) All that the owner of any building can be called upon to do. with regard to that building, if he desires to use it as a tenement house, is to keep it in such a condition as the statute requires. If he does that, he has complied with the law and his building is not a nuisance. He cannot be compelled to submit to the de